SCOTUS vacates lower court ruling on Trump's Twitter blocks and says it's now moot. Thomas concurs, then raises questions about the free-speech implications of Twitter's decision to ban him. pic.twitter.com/JvhfCj3MnU
— Matt Ford (@fordm) April 5, 2021
Justice Thomas’s take is anti-free speech, inconsistent with his prior stances, and deeply shortsighted. Section 230 *protects* the freedom of speech on the internet. The unintended consequences of diluting or deleting it will be devastating, perhaps most of all to conservatives. https://t.co/rFeJCW3UYx
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) April 5, 2021
I am confident that Clarence Thomas' rallying cry for legislation overriding social media companies' First Amendment rights and forcing them to host speech is *entirely* about right-wing fears that Twitter, Facebook, etc. are censoring conservative speech. https://t.co/2zx7nCtIAz
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) April 5, 2021
The dominant social media companies can and should be regulated like public utilities. Just like a telephone company cannot lawfully discriminate, neither should large digital communication platforms. https://t.co/d9xS1fkyda
— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) April 5, 2021
Justice Thomas, on the other hand, I do not regard in high esteem. He voted in favour of Oracle, and also this:https://t.co/IqRVRztAYi
— Alec Muffett (@AlecMuffett) April 5, 2021
You know the conservatives who have been arguing—unsuccessfully so far—that social media companies are so powerful that Congress can essentially override their own First Amendment rights and force them to host certain speech on their platforms? Thomas just endorsed that argument. pic.twitter.com/QHhLpZwEF7
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) April 5, 2021
My SCOTUS high has fizzled b/c of Justice Thomas. Sigh. This whole opinion is insane. https://t.co/N7HXFtuf4g
— Christina Warren (@film_girl) April 5, 2021
In other words, Clarence Thomas is inviting Congress to ban social media companies from engaging in content moderation by stripping them of their own First Amendment rights and transforming them, for legal purposes, into common carriers or public accommodations.
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) April 5, 2021
Justice Clarence Thomas wants the **government** to regulate speech on the internet. If you are a Republican who supports this view, don’t ever lecture anyone on free speech ever again. https://t.co/us4YQzjx6d
— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) April 5, 2021
?Clarence Thomas suggests that social media companies may NOT have a First Amendment right to regulate speech on their platforms, analogizing them to "common carriers" and "places of public accommodation." https://t.co/2zx7nCtIAz pic.twitter.com/ZleTE1aI0S
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) April 5, 2021
Justice Thomas on compelling platforms to carry hate speech and other TOS-violating content: No biggie, platforms' own editorial rights are not a serious barrier, the Framers would be down with this. Probably intermediate scrutiny. https://t.co/hA3NNUobzy pic.twitter.com/4wudXHoptj
— Daphne Keller (@daphnehk) April 5, 2021
This is completely off the wall bonkers. This is like QAnon level bonkers. Coming from a Supreme Court Justice. https://t.co/uW7TvBgVD9
— Mike Masnick (@mmasnick) April 5, 2021
NEW: The Supreme Court agrees to take up one new case, Brown v. Davenport. It's a technical but important question about the standard for federal courts reviewing habeas claims to assess whether constitutional violations were "harmless error." https://t.co/3XpfcmiLbp
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) April 5, 2021
Justice Thomas on making cable companies carry public access channels (think Wayne's World, only more boring and sometimes civic-minded): That's forced speech, threatens cable companies' editorial rights, gets heightened scrutiny. https://t.co/hcAbbz3SvK pic.twitter.com/GdfvmVHYIl
— Daphne Keller (@daphnehk) April 5, 2021
!!! Thomas cites arguments that Section 230, which provides immunity to platforms for third-party content, *violates the First Amendment.* https://t.co/2zx7nCtIAz pic.twitter.com/jgjz2xIBNL
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) April 5, 2021
Justice Thomas suggests that tech platforms could be regulated like utilities in what would be a major shift for services like Facebook, Google and Twitter. More from @lauren_feiner: https://t.co/8oWDpfrwRg
— CNBC Politics (@CNBCPolitics) April 5, 2021
Justice Thomas suggests regulating tech platforms like utilities https://t.co/x4AZuI8i3m
— CNBC (@CNBC) April 5, 2021
“A person always could choose to avoid the toll bridge or train and instead swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Trail. But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable."https://t.co/vwc95wVQcn
— Lauren Feiner (@lauren_feiner) April 5, 2021
Justice Thomas suggests regulating tech platforms like utilities https://t.co/7MirZgO2sA
— CNBC Tech (@CNBCtech) April 5, 2021
Justice Thomas Wonders When Supreme Court Will Have To Consider Social Media’s Private Deplatforming Power – https://t.co/fGAjgKW1b2 #SCOTUS #Censorship #Section230 #1A https://t.co/6fgmeSQvW6
— TheCyberChick (@warriors_mom) April 5, 2021
Supreme Court dismisses case about Trump blocking critics on Twitter https://t.co/dliiTFpuMv pic.twitter.com/oBqbXwH9nY
— New York Post (@nypost) April 5, 2021